2.0 Analysis 2.1 Introduction Field examination of the wreckage indicated that the aircraft was serviceable at the time of the occurrence. The analysis will, therefore, focus on the weather conditions that existed along the planned route at the time of the occurrence, and on the pilot's experience and his decision to continue the flight into mountainous terrain in deteriorating weather. 2.2 Weather The forecast and actual meteorological conditions on the planned route were unfavourable for VFR flight in the vicinity of Watson Lake and in the mountainous areas to the west of Watson Lake. Although VFR conditions existed near Teslin, the weather again deteriorated to IFR conditions further west in the vicinity of Whitehorse. 2.3 Pilot The combination of unfavourable VFR weather conditions, mountainous terrain, and unfamiliarity with the route placed the pilot in a high-risk situation. When the pilot transmitted his last position report 24 miles south of Watson Lake, he advised that he had been following the Alaska Highway at 6,000 feet asl all the way from Fort Nelson. The reported position places the aircraft approximately 24 miles south of the Alaska Highway and suggests that he may have been deviating from the planned route due to poor weather at that time. The aircraft was equipped and certified for IFR flight in non-icing conditions and the pilot was instrument rated; however, he had not recently exercised instrument flight privileges due to lack of currency. It could not be determined if the aircraft was below, in, or above cloud when it struck the mountain slope. However, the proximity of the accident site to the centre line of the R5 low frequency airway and the selected ADF frequency of 248 kHz suggests that he may have been tracking outbound from the Watson Lake NDB at 2,800 feet below the MOCA, rather than attempting to follow the highway, when the accident occurred. It could not be determined why the pilot made the decision to depart Fort Nelson knowing that the en route weather conditions west of Watson Lake were marginal for VFR flight, or why he pressed on after encountering the unfavourable weather. There was no evidence that he was adhering to a precise schedule, or that he was under any external pressure to complete the leg from Fort Nelson to Beaver Creek on that particular day. Several facts indicate that he had developed a mind-set to go. Witnesses observed that he was very excited about the flight to Alaska. He had not previously flown the Alaska Highway; however, he declined a route briefing by a Yukon pilot who was familiar with the terrain. Although the pre-departure FSS weather briefing indicated that the weather would be marginal for VFR flight in mountainous areas to the west of Watson Lake, the pilot proceeded to flight plan on Victor Airways all the way to Beaver Creek and departed with the notion that it would be a day to hunt and peck. He carried on with the flight, in mountainous terrain, after encountering the forecast poor weather conditions and after being advised that another aircraft flying VFR to Whitehorse had landed in Watson Lake. He may have deliberately chosen not to attempt to land in Watson Lake because of the existing 200-foot ceiling, and to proceed to Teslin, where the conditions were reportedly better. The aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel to return to Fort Nelson, and the safer VFR procedure would have been to return in known VFR weather. 3.0 Conclusions 3.1 Findings The meteorological conditions at Fort Nelson were favourable for VFR flight when the aircraft departed. The meteorological conditions deteriorated along the planned route, as forecast, and were unfavourable for VFR flight near and to the west of Watson Lake. The pilot held an instrument rating; however, he had not recently flown IFR due to lack of currency. The ELT broke loose from the mounting bracket and fragmented at impact. Search efforts were hampered by poor weather conditions and the lack of an ELT signal. There was no evidence found of a pre-impact airframe or engine discrepancy. The accident was not survivable due to the magnitude of the impact forces and the collapse of the cockpit survival space. 3.2 Causes The pilot attempted to continue visual flight in adverse weather conditions. The Board has no aviation safety recommendations to issue at this time.4.0 Safety Action The Board has no aviation safety recommendations to issue at this time.